Cargando…

Osseointegration of retrieved 3D-printed, off-the-shelf acetabular implants

AIMS: The main advantage of 3D-printed, off-the-shelf acetabular implants is the potential to promote enhanced bony fixation due to their controllable porous structure. In this study we investigated the extent of osseointegration in retrieved 3D-printed acetabular implants. METHODS: We compared two...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dall’Ava, Lorenzo, Hothi, Harry, Henckel, Johann, Di Laura, Anna, Tirabosco, Roberto, Eskelinen, Antti, Skinner, John, Hart, Alister
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery 2021
Materias:
Hip
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8333029/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34235940
http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.107.BJR-2020-0462.R1
_version_ 1783732954851180544
author Dall’Ava, Lorenzo
Hothi, Harry
Henckel, Johann
Di Laura, Anna
Tirabosco, Roberto
Eskelinen, Antti
Skinner, John
Hart, Alister
author_facet Dall’Ava, Lorenzo
Hothi, Harry
Henckel, Johann
Di Laura, Anna
Tirabosco, Roberto
Eskelinen, Antti
Skinner, John
Hart, Alister
author_sort Dall’Ava, Lorenzo
collection PubMed
description AIMS: The main advantage of 3D-printed, off-the-shelf acetabular implants is the potential to promote enhanced bony fixation due to their controllable porous structure. In this study we investigated the extent of osseointegration in retrieved 3D-printed acetabular implants. METHODS: We compared two groups, one made via 3D-printing (n = 7) and the other using conventional techniques (n = 7). We collected implant details, type of surgery and removal technique, patient demographics, and clinical history. Bone integration was assessed by macroscopic visual analysis, followed by sectioning to allow undecalcified histology on eight sections (~200 µm) for each implant. The outcome measures considered were area of bone attachment (%), extent of bone ingrowth (%), bone-implant contact (%), and depth of ingrowth (%), and these were quantified using a line-intercept method. RESULTS: The two groups were matched for patient sex, age (61 and 63 years), time to revision (30 and 41 months), implant size (54 mm and 52 mm), and porosity (72% and 60%) (p > 0.152). There was no difference in visual bony attachment (p = 0.209). Histological analysis showed greater bone ingrowth in 3D-printed implants (p < 0.001), with mean bone attachment of 63% (SD 28%) and 37% (SD 20%), respectively. This was observed for all the outcome measures. CONCLUSION: This was the first study to investigate osseointegration in retrieved 3D-printed acetabular implants. Greater bone ingrowth was found in 3D-printed implants, suggesting that better osseointegration can be achieved. However, the influence of specific surgeon, implant, and patient factors needs to be considered. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2021;10(7):388–400.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8333029
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-83330292021-08-09 Osseointegration of retrieved 3D-printed, off-the-shelf acetabular implants Dall’Ava, Lorenzo Hothi, Harry Henckel, Johann Di Laura, Anna Tirabosco, Roberto Eskelinen, Antti Skinner, John Hart, Alister Bone Joint Res Hip AIMS: The main advantage of 3D-printed, off-the-shelf acetabular implants is the potential to promote enhanced bony fixation due to their controllable porous structure. In this study we investigated the extent of osseointegration in retrieved 3D-printed acetabular implants. METHODS: We compared two groups, one made via 3D-printing (n = 7) and the other using conventional techniques (n = 7). We collected implant details, type of surgery and removal technique, patient demographics, and clinical history. Bone integration was assessed by macroscopic visual analysis, followed by sectioning to allow undecalcified histology on eight sections (~200 µm) for each implant. The outcome measures considered were area of bone attachment (%), extent of bone ingrowth (%), bone-implant contact (%), and depth of ingrowth (%), and these were quantified using a line-intercept method. RESULTS: The two groups were matched for patient sex, age (61 and 63 years), time to revision (30 and 41 months), implant size (54 mm and 52 mm), and porosity (72% and 60%) (p > 0.152). There was no difference in visual bony attachment (p = 0.209). Histological analysis showed greater bone ingrowth in 3D-printed implants (p < 0.001), with mean bone attachment of 63% (SD 28%) and 37% (SD 20%), respectively. This was observed for all the outcome measures. CONCLUSION: This was the first study to investigate osseointegration in retrieved 3D-printed acetabular implants. Greater bone ingrowth was found in 3D-printed implants, suggesting that better osseointegration can be achieved. However, the influence of specific surgeon, implant, and patient factors needs to be considered. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2021;10(7):388–400. The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery 2021-07-08 /pmc/articles/PMC8333029/ /pubmed/34235940 http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.107.BJR-2020-0462.R1 Text en © 2021 Author(s) et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) licence, which permits the copying and redistribution of the work only, and provided the original author and source are credited. See https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
spellingShingle Hip
Dall’Ava, Lorenzo
Hothi, Harry
Henckel, Johann
Di Laura, Anna
Tirabosco, Roberto
Eskelinen, Antti
Skinner, John
Hart, Alister
Osseointegration of retrieved 3D-printed, off-the-shelf acetabular implants
title Osseointegration of retrieved 3D-printed, off-the-shelf acetabular implants
title_full Osseointegration of retrieved 3D-printed, off-the-shelf acetabular implants
title_fullStr Osseointegration of retrieved 3D-printed, off-the-shelf acetabular implants
title_full_unstemmed Osseointegration of retrieved 3D-printed, off-the-shelf acetabular implants
title_short Osseointegration of retrieved 3D-printed, off-the-shelf acetabular implants
title_sort osseointegration of retrieved 3d-printed, off-the-shelf acetabular implants
topic Hip
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8333029/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34235940
http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.107.BJR-2020-0462.R1
work_keys_str_mv AT dallavalorenzo osseointegrationofretrieved3dprintedofftheshelfacetabularimplants
AT hothiharry osseointegrationofretrieved3dprintedofftheshelfacetabularimplants
AT henckeljohann osseointegrationofretrieved3dprintedofftheshelfacetabularimplants
AT dilauraanna osseointegrationofretrieved3dprintedofftheshelfacetabularimplants
AT tiraboscoroberto osseointegrationofretrieved3dprintedofftheshelfacetabularimplants
AT eskelinenantti osseointegrationofretrieved3dprintedofftheshelfacetabularimplants
AT skinnerjohn osseointegrationofretrieved3dprintedofftheshelfacetabularimplants
AT hartalister osseointegrationofretrieved3dprintedofftheshelfacetabularimplants